Chennai Court August 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M/S. Sam Turbo Industries Ltd. Rep. by Its Joint Managing Director Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the records from the file of the respondent made in Ref.No.TNGST 2060730/05-06 dated 28.03.2012 and quash the same.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that an appeal remedy is available to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order of the respondent, dated 28.03.2012, as per Section 31 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. 3. In view of the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it would be open to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appropriate authority, challenging the order of the respondent, dated 28.03.2012, as per Section 31 of ...
Murugiah Kandyar Vs. the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
(PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to count the Hundiyals and other incomes to Arulmighu Muthumariamman Temple, Narthamalai, Kulathoor Taluk, Pudukkottai District in the presence of Tahsildar, Kulathoor and Nattu Ambalam.) ORDER 1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to count the Hundiyals and other income of Arulmighu Muthumariamman Temple, Narthamalai, Kulathoor Taluk, Pudukkottai District in the presence of Tahsildar, Kulathoor and Nattu Ambalam and to pass appropriate orders. 2. The petitioner claims himself to be a Nattu Ambalam otherwise known as 'Miras' of Sathyamangalam Village. The grievance of the petitioner was that the said temple has not been proceeded with proper amenities. Even though the devotees belonged to the temple are in large numbers, there was no electricity supply during the festival of this year and the...
A. Rajalakshmi and Others Vs. Sengammal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
(Prayers: A.S.No.589 of 1994: Appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, made in O.S.No.110 of 1991, dated 5.4.1994. CMP No.10569 of 1996: Petition under Section 107(2), CPC, to direct that the date of filing of the suit wrongly shown as 18.1.1974 in the decree be corrected as 28.1.1991. CMP No.17037 of 2000: Petition under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC, to receive as additional evidence, document marked Ex.A, registration copy of Partition Deed dated 6.2.1970, Document No.1719 of 1970 and Document marked Ex.B, registration copy of purchase document dated 15.12.1962, Document No.1927 of 1962. CRP No.3542 of 2000: Revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the order dated 27.10.2000 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge in E.P.No.97 of 2000 in I.A.No.1338 of 1995 in O.S.No.110 of 1991 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore and dismiss the aforesaid E.P.No.97 of ...
Kannusamy Naicker (Died) and Others Vs. Nataraja Naicker and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
(Prayer: Appeal against the judgement and decree dated 30.11.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court III), Vridhachalam, in O.S.No.6 of 2004.) 1. This appeal is focussed by the plaintiff as against the judgement and decree dated dated 30.11.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court III), Vridhachalam, in O.S.No.6 of 2004, which is one for partition. 2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal, in a few broad strokes can be encapsulated thus: (i) The first appellant herein, who died during the pendency of the appeal, as plaintiff, filed the suit O.S.No.6 of 2004 for partition of the 'A' and 'B' scheduled suit properties into three equal shares among himself, D1 and D2 and allot one such share in his favour. The appella...
Accel Frontline Services Limited Vs. Accel Frontline Limited Represent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
(Prayer: Petitions filed under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 r/w Rule 79 of the Companies Court Rules 1959 for sanctioning the scheme of arrangement of amalgamation.) Common Order: 1. Accel Frontline Services Limited (hereinafter called as the transferor company) is the petitioner in C.P.No.124 of 2012. It was originally incorporated in the State of Karnataka on 6.12.1995 as M/s.XLNC Info Tech Solutions Private Limited under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The name of the company was subsequently changed to Accel Frontline Service Private Limited on 5.8.2008. Thereafter, it became a deemed public company on 2.6.2009 under Section 43 A of the Companies Act, 1956. In 2010, its Registered Office was shifted from Karnataka to be located at No.75, Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-29, which comes within the jurisdiction of this court. A copy of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the transferor company has been filed as Annexure 1. The authori...
Tiruchuli Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai Society, Rep by Its Secretary, A.P. ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
(Prayer: PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.5396 of 2012: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of appointment of the third respondent dated 09.03.2011 issued by the second respondent and consequential approval order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings Ne.Mu.No.1451/A2/2011, dated 06.06.2011 and quash the same. PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.10747 of 2012: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation dated 10.04.2012 sent by the petitioner and take appropriate action against the fourth respondent and pass further orders.) COMMON ORDER 1. In both the Writ Petitions, the petitioner is a Uravinmurai Society of Tiruchuli Hindu Nadar, which is a registered Society with Registration No.84 of 2000. The deponent of the affidavit claims to be the Secretary of...
The Management of Tiruvarur, Rep. by Its Special Officer and Another V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
(Prayer: Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief as stated therein.) 1. The petitioner in WP No.38895/2002 viz., the Management of Tiruvarur Consumer Co-operative Wholesale stores, rep. by its Special Officer, Tiruvarur, seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of R-2/Labour Court with reference to the order dated 19.06.2002, passed by it in Claim Petition No.84 of 1999, awarding a sum of Rs.1,73,628/- payable to the first respondent/employee towards backwages and bonus by the petitioner along with costs of Rs.300/-, and to quash the said order. “The first respondent/employee S.Vijayakumar has filed W.P. No.34909 of 2003 for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the R2/Labour Court pertaining to the order dated 19.06.2002 passed in the aforesaid claim petition and to quash the said order only to an extent of disallowing the interest portion of Rs.1,30,222.85 alone as claimed by the pe...
E. Arasu and Another Vs. the Principal Secretary, Chennai and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
(Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to stop quarrying beyond the permitted rules of sand in Palar River sand bed situate on southern side of survey No.1076-1, 1079-1, 1095-5B, 1096-4B, 1121-1A, 1139-1A and 1141 Musaravakkam Village and morefully situate immediate/adjacent southern side of agricultural land in Survey No.24-1, 24-3, 24-5, 24-5B, 25-1, 25-2, 25-3, 25-4, 26-1, 26-2, 26-3,26-4, 26-5, 27-3, 27-4, 35-2, 35-3, 40-2 at Pichavadi village, Kancheepuram taluk and District and restore the sand level to its original level by filling up the excavated pits in the sand bed of Palar River.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had submitted that it would suffice, if the fourth respondent is directed to dispose of the repres...
Selvi. J. Jayalalithaa Vs. PenguIn Books India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
V. Periya Karuppiah, J. 1. This application has been filed by the applicants / defendants 1 and 3 praying to vacate the order of stay made in O.A.No.417 of 2011 in C.S.No.326 of 2011 dated 26.04.2011 passed by the Hon’ble Court. 2. Heard Mr.L.Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel, Mr.Guru Krishna Kumar, learned counsel and Mr.A.Navaneetha Krishnan, learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of Mr.P.H.Manoj Pandian, Mr.Abdul Saleem and Mr.R.Bala Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the applicant in O.A.No.417 of 2011 (first respondent in A.No.2570 of 2011 and plaintiff in C.S.No.326 of 2011) and Ms.Dalia Sen Oberoi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Rohan Rohtagi and Mr.R.Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 3 in O.A.No.417 of 2011 (applicants in A.No.2570 of 2011 and defendants 1 and 3 in C.S.No.326 of 2011). No appearance for the respondents 2, 4 and 5 / Defendants 2, 4 and 5. 3. Mr.L.Nageswara Rao, learned Senior counsel appearing for...
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Andhra Pradesh Vs. Bakthavachalam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Order made in M.C.O.P. No.320 of 1998 dated 04.04.2007 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court), Dharmapuri. JUDGMENT R.BANUMATHI,J 1. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation of Rs.14,84,559/- awarded for the injuries sustained by the 1st Respondent-Claimant in road traffic accident on 14.03.1997, Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts are that 1st Respondent-Claimant was on duty as Conductor in 3rd Respondent-Transport Corporation Bus bearing registration No.TN-29-N 0713, which was proceeding from Bargur to Madras. On 14.3.1997, when the bus was nearing Ankinayackanampatti village in Bargur to Vaniyambadi National Highways, the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.ATC 2977 belonging to the 2nd Respondent and insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »